Whatchamacolumn: City budget transparency faces information overload
A newly constituted McMinnville City Council took office on Tuesday, that following Saturday’s council goal-setting retreat. Along the way, discussion of the sprawling city budget produced an interesting dichotomy.
Many citizens don’t know where all the money goes and have difficulty reading the massive budget document, said new Councilor Dan Tucholsky. Previous Budget Committee member Scott Cunningham, also new on the council, responded that the city budget is publicly available and highly transparent on every item, “down to new jackets for policy officers.”
New Mayor Kim Morris said “transparency and accountability” are high priorities for a city that needs to rebuild public trust that is “currently lacking.” Councilor Sal Peralta cautioned against adding to public skepticism of a city government that accounts for all dollars spent, but he acknowledged a need for better communications about city finances.
All of them were correct because, of course, “transparency” is subject to different interpretations.
Fact is, some people could find answers to almost any city revenue/expense question by poring through the city’s 583-page budget proposal for 2024-25 budget. However, most people would experience glassy eyes and a frozen brain in trying to analyze the huge array of details about gathering and spending $135 million.
One of my first jobs — in 1965-66, before pocket calculators existed — included manual addition on long columns of eight-digit numerals. So, I’m pretty good with numbers, but I admit to getting lost in the vast forest of McMinnville budget arithmetic presentations.
Making matters more complicated, different budgets are presented as proposed, approved, adopted and amended; budgets are displayed in great detail by fund, by category, by department, by section and by program; easy comparisons are hindered by year-to-year variations in outside revenue, city fees, merging of departments and, most recently, by elimination of a $10 million fire department with previous property tax revenues being spread to other departments.
These factors, and others, make it almost impossible to truly understand and analyze the city of McMinnville’s latest budget. When people don’t understand something, suspicions sneak in and trust begins to erode, and that was a big factor in the city leadership change delivered by voters in November.
There is, in fact, a high level of transparency in the city budget. However, transparency can turn into smokescreens from information overload, defined thusly in Wikipedia:
“Information overload (also known as infobesity, infoxication or information anxiety), is the difficulty in understanding an issue and effectively making decisions when one has too much information (TMI) about that issue.”
Twenty years ago, McMinnville’s budget included a slightly better Budget Organization Chart and a highly enlightening “Fund Summary” chart that isn’t found today. There were fewer major changes year-to-year, contributing to higher levels of public trust in city finance.
Both side of the transparency debate make good points, but in the end result, budgetary transparency exists — or doesn’t — in the eye of the citizen beholders. And most of those citizens, engulfed in their own info-overload worlds, don’t care much about city budgets until time to pay their rent or property taxes.
Jeb Bladine can be reached at jbladine@newsregister.com or 503-687-1223.
Comments
CubFan
Trust and accountability. Two things the citizens of McMinnville are craving right now. Morris has championed these topics as some of her priorities. Rightfully so.
Tucholsky stated in a Jan 13 NR article “he has a hard time asking the public to pay for more services without being able to tell them where current funds are being spent.” Though the budget is a public document, Tucholsky recognizes not every resident is able to read and understand this massive document. Tucholsky “gets us”.
In that same article, Peralta asserts that every dollar the city spends is “fundamentally accounted for”. In other words “trust us”. Sorry Sal, I don’t trust the city right now. And with good reason. The city imposed the user fee on the Water & Light bills to cover a budget shortfall. The city has now collected more than TWICE what it needed to cover the gap, and not only continues to collect the fee, but if you look at your W&L bills this month, you will see the fee has increased! Then there’s the tricky way the city got us to vote for the new fire department, and is still imposing a tax of $1.50/M that was originally for the fire department. The net result to taxpayers is we are being taxed twice for the fire department.
At the first City Council meeting Morris presided over, a citizen asked about the user fee. Morris promised a reply to him. She and the city, need to do one better. Reply to all of us. Be honest and transparent about this whole fiasco. Morris just started as mayor, I have confidence she’ll honor her campaign promises.
As Jeb stated: “These factors, and others, make it almost impossible to truly understand and analyze the city of McMinnville’s latest budget. When people don’t understand something, suspicions sneak in and trust begins to erode, and that was a big factor in the city leadership change delivered by voters in November.”
Moe
'... Peralta asserts that every dollar the city spends is “fundamentally accounted for”.'
Irrelevant. Mere gaslighting.
Suppose a bank robber was on trial, and as a defense, provided a 583-page budget showing how he spent every penny. Who cares. Gaslighting. A red herring. An attempted sleight of hand. He wasn't on trial for bad accounting. In fact, the 583-page budget would be evidence of the very crime for which he WAS on trial - robbing the bank!
The continuing W&L user fee is by definition unconscionable. Who cares how the city spends the money - the injury is the unconscionable fee. Note that a bond has a maturity date. No maturity date here. The payments go on forever, for what amounts to an already paid debt. At $100 / year for 70 years that would amount to $7,000 per head, $70 million per 10,000 heads, for which it is reasonable, and a duty, to file a lawsuit.
If a creditor kept sending bills for an already paid debt, even assuming the original debt had an honest contract, the debtor would be within his rights to refuse payment. If sued by the creditor, PAID, relative to the original contract, would be a valid affirmative defense. A pretrial motion to dismiss, perhaps filed even before service of the complaint, after the action commenced, would stand a good chance of an ORDER dismissing the case with prejudice. After all, there is no wrong by the defendant for not paying a non-existent debt; the court cannot hear a case for which there is no "wrong" according to the law.
Similar comments apply to the dishonest $1.50/M.
Suppose at his trial the bank robber used as a defense that he told the bank in his note that he was robbing the bank; not his fault if they "agreed" to being robbed, even if the note was deceptive, which is the thinking of a sociopath.
Attorneys interested in filing suit are free to contact me via the N-R. Seeking a stipend.